Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

You assume that every business man is a cad.
No. You assume every businessman is a sleaze or drongo or whatever word gets you off these days.
That is so wrong.
Yes, yes you are.
If some drongo wants to make widgets and pay 75% of a living wage and another agrees to pay 100% of living wage, guess which one will make a widget worth every penny you pay for it?

Another false assumption, here, it's, once again, that every worker will put in the same amount of "work." There is no guarantee that because Jimmy is paid more he will do better work.

Now we'll go around in a circle, yet again, because you refuse to acknowledge that life isn't as simple as workers good employers bad.
 
No. You assume every businessman is a sleaze or drongo or whatever word gets you off these days. Yes, yes you are.

No. I assume that they will become accustomed to acting like schmucks left to their own devices. Historicly, they have. Capitalism is a symphony of boom and bust as the big fish cannibalize the rest of the school.

Now we'll go around in a circle, yet again, because you refuse to acknowledge that life isn't as simple as workers good employers bad.

And you refuse to acknowledge that nobody has a right to prosper from the fruits of another man's labor while the laborer falls behind.
 
You have no right to prosper while those who work for your profit fall behind. It really is that simple.

I hate to rain on your parade but you prosper when you hire someone for "personal" reasons as well as business ones, your benefit may just not be in the form of money. For instance, if I pay one of the neighborhood kids to mow my lawn I have more time to beat up the other neighborhood kids and steal their allowances. I gain the work done and the time saved, they gain the money but lose the time.
 
Yes, I understand you believe what you've written above. But you're not really answering my question. I'm asking why, if you recognize that both parties come out ahead in a "personal interaction" at less than minimum wage, then why are they not also both coming out ahead when the transaction is called something different?

That you believe it is wrong when done in a "business interaction" does not change the relative benefits to the parties. They're still benefiting the same in either case.

I also do not understand why, in your view, it is acceptable to "prosper" on a personal level (i.e. paying someone less than minimum wage to cut grass at your home) but wrong to "prosper" on a business level (i.e. paying someone less than minimum wage to cut grass at someone else's home). The costs and benefits (i.e. the cost of the labor and the work received in return) are essentially the same in both cases.

Jealousy. He is angry that a bunch of drongos have migrated to North America and been much more successful than he has ever been despite the non-trivial handicap of being birds.
 
You have no right to prosper while those who work for your profit fall behind. It really is that simple.


The workers are every bit as dependent on their employer for their profit, as the other way around. There is no rational way to defend this principle in one direction only, without applying it equally in the other direction.
 
Last edited:
The workers are every bit as dependent on their employer for their profit, as the other way around.

Total bull flops. The employer can do all of the work himself and maybe make a small sum of money, or he can hire several people and make a great deal more. As long as he pays them a decent wage, the entire community benefits. But, if he pays them less than a decent wage, to the point that they cannot get ahead, and this has become the accepted practice in the community, the entire community may collapse because all of the wealth has been transferred to the hands of what few entrepreneurs survive. In the end, the entrepreneurs may even hold most of the community in a sort of peonage. It happens. Look at most of Latin America. Look at Alabama, for that matter. If theemployers are not paying a decent day's provisions, they soon come to cotrol al of the resources available, so that only a select few can do business at all. The worker has no option to just quit and start his own business.

Now the employer has no incentive to reward eve an outstanding worker, or even to produce a superior product because he will probably have gobbled up all of his competition and slammed the door in the face of any upstart who might challenge him. Forget Ayn Rand. There is nothing noble about greed and selfishness. Mankind is not meant to survive by beating down the weak and hoarding resources. The fossil record stands as witness to that. We succeded in the Darwinian sense by sharing and cooperating.

Paying those people from whose labor you wish to gain more material wealth less than they need to survive with any sort of dignity is short of being fully human.

There is no rational way to defend this principle in one direction only, without applying it equally in the other direction.

The entrepreneur is not entitled to prosper unless he is providing a service or product that is needed. He has "taken a risk." Well bloody good on him. That does not mean that we have to reward him in any way if the risk he took was that we would all love creamed Brussels sprouts.

He still owes a decent day's wages to the workers whose labor he committed to producing that gunk. They did not make the bone-headed decision that put the company into bankruptcy.

There will be other people to come along and run the packing plant to pack other foods that people actually want to eat when that fool throws in the towel and decides to go looking for a job digging ditches.
 
You better watch out, Lefty!

They have you surrounded!

100px-Bronzed_Drongo_I_IMG_1677.jpg
100px-Bronzed_Drongo_I_54.jpg
100px-Thimindu_White_belied_Drongo_1.JPG


100px-Dicrurus_adsimilis2.jpg
avatar18157_2.gif
100px-Ashy_Drongo_I_IMG_8164.jpg

100px-Mats_Carnmarker_-_African_Drongo.jpg
100px-Dicrurus_Forficatus_Crested_Drongo_Kirindy_Madagascar.jpg
100px-Dicrurus_hottentottus-20030823.jpg
 
It was also the name of a race horse. That is the context in which I use the word. It fits anyone who thinks that GOP fiscal policies make a lick of sense.
 
leftysergeant" said:
Paying those people from whose labor you wish to gain more material wealth less than they need to survive with any sort of dignity is short of being fully human.


Except that you've previously agreed that both parties come out ahead when they do it as part of a "personal interaction."

By the way, you still have not answered my earlier question on that point. You've stated that you personally think it is wrong to profit off of someone else's labor by paying less than minimum wage. But you have not explained why, if you recognize that both parties come out ahead in a "personal interaction" at less than minimum wage, then why they are not also both coming out ahead when the transaction is called something different? The costs and benefits (i.e. the cost of the labor and the work received in return) are essentially the same in both cases.
 
The entrepreneur is not entitled to prosper unless he is providing a service or product that is needed. He has "taken a risk."
And not even entitled to a days provisions, even though anything less is short of being fully human?
 
Why would this be any different for the laborer?
Because that sleazebag entrepreneur is going to have nothing at all unless he combines his capital with somebody else's labor. He has a choice. Pay the worker a day's provisions for a day's work or make him a partner. He has no right to get ahead while the people who make him rich fall behind.
 
Because that sleazebag entrepreneur is going to have nothing at all unless he combines his capital with somebody else's labor. He has a choice. Pay the worker a day's provisions for a day's work or make him a partner. He has no right to get ahead while the people who make him rich fall behind.

You continue to avoid answering what should be done with labor not worth your minimum starting requirements.

As it is, unskilled workers typically have two or more incomes in the same household. You wish to take that option away from many of them by making anyone not worth $10 an hour completely unemployable. What do you want to do with the thousands that you wish to force into unemployment?
 
Because that sleazebag entrepreneur is going to have nothing at all unless he combines his capital with somebody else's labor. He has a choice. Pay the worker a day's provisions for a day's work or make him a partner. He has no right to get ahead while the people who make him rich fall behind.


And the worker is going to have nothing unless he combines his labor with the entrepreneur's capital. If the worker gets rich, while his employer—the one who is making it possible for the worker to get rich—struggles and falls behind, then how is that any different from the case of the worker struggling and falling behind while the employer gets rich?
 
And the worker is going to have nothing unless he combines his labor with the entrepreneur's capital. If the worker gets rich, while his employer—the one who is making it possible for the worker to get rich—struggles and falls behind, then how is that any different from the case of the worker struggling and falling behind while the employer gets rich?
There will be someone to replace the drongo who couldnt come up with a rational business plan. There was an astounding amount of work getting done in the world before anybody even got the idea of money, let alone of capital. Capital cannot, by itself, create wealth. It just moves it around to where it is needed. Capital cannot create itself. Only labor can create capital and capital should only be tolerated as a means of subsidizing labor.

You're falling back to the slave-years mentality.
 
Because that sleazebag entrepreneur is going to have nothing at all unless he combines his capital with somebody else's labor. He has a choice. Pay the worker a day's provisions for a day's work or make him a partner. He has no right to get ahead while the people who make him rich fall behind.
Who said anything about him not paying the workers a days provisions? He pays his workers their minimum wage as he is morally obligated to do. There is not enough left over for his days provisions. Why is that not immoral in society?

There will be someone to replace the drongo who couldnt come up with a rational business plan.
There will be someone to replace the drongo worker who couldnt develop enough skill to be paid a days provisions. Again, see how that works?
 
I still don't understand how paying someone less than minimum wage can lead to both parties coming out ahead when done as part of a "personal interaction" but not when the same transaction is called something else. The relative costs and benefits to the parties are exactly the same in both cases.
 
Who said anything about him not paying the workers a days provisions? He pays his workers their minimum wage as he is morally obligated to do. There is not enough left over for his days provisions. Why is that not immoral in society?
Well clearly because he's a drongo sleaze jelly brain scumbag twerp. Clearly.
There will be someone to replace the drongo worker who couldnt develop enough skill to be paid a days provisions. Again, see how that works?

This would be less amusing if the double standards weren't so obvious.

It has nothing to do with helping workers.
 

Back
Top Bottom